JUDGMENT : M.L. Bhat, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and award dated 12-5-1981 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Kanpur in Reference No. 422 of 1963 u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The court below has allowed additional compensation of Rs. 36,729/- with 6% interest in addition to the compensation of Rs. 6063/- granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that the court below has committed an error in refusing to pay the market value for the vacant land separately which is claimed at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq. yard. The vacant land and built-up land has been treated as one unit, which is not correct according to law. It is also submitted that the court below has not considered the expert's report about the valuation of the property. The court below is said to have ignored from consideration the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1953. It has committed an error in calculating the rental value of the building. The court below is said to have not considered the evidence on record. Potentiality and commercial value of the building has not been taken into consideration. Damages u/s 48A of the Act could not be refused. The enhanced amount of compensation is too low. 3. It appears that premises No. RT 16 (old) and 133/241 (new) situate at Rattupurwa (Juhi Khurd) in Kanpur having an area of 2 Bighas 13 Biswas was acquired through the award dated 19-1-1962 under the scheme known as the Southern City Extension Scheme No. II duly framed by the Town improvement Trust Kanpur and sanctioned by the local Government. This scheme was notified u/s 36(1) of the Town Improvement Act of 1919 on 17, 24 and 31-1-1920 and notification u/s 42(1) of the said Act was issued on 7-1-1921. The land forms part of plot No. 234. The owners of the building and occupier of the' open land are mentioned in the judgment of the court below. However, there was some dispute about the area of the land, which was finally settled by the court below by deciding issue No. 1. The total acquired land was held to be 1980 sq. yards. The Appellants had claimed Rs. 10/- per sq. yard against Annas per sq. yard granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. However, there was some dispute about the area of the land, which was finally settled by the court below by deciding issue No. 1. The total acquired land was held to be 1980 sq. yards. The Appellants had claimed Rs. 10/- per sq. yard against Annas per sq. yard granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Appellants seem to have filed a supplementary claim and stated that the cost of the similar land in the Nagar Mahapalika was between Rs. 70/- to Rs. 110/- per sq. yard. It was also claimed that the property in the shape of house (Malba) was not valued properly and assessment of the Malba with land underneath the Malba hat not been made in accordance with law. The value assessed for the building, which had dilapidated and compensation of Rs. 6063/- awarded was said to be meagre. The reference was contested by the State. The court below reused to grant damages to the Appellants u/s 48A of the Land Acquisition Act. It, however, granted compensation in addition to the amount, which was granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, to the tune of Rs. 36,729/- as compensation for the dilapidated building and the land under and appurtenant thereto. In this way the total compensation which was payable to the Appellants is 42,780/. For determining compensation of the building and the land the court below has relied on an authority of this Court Sheo Nath Misra v. U.P. Government 1961 ALJ 340. It was held that the only proper method for determination of the market value of the property is the capitalization of the net annual profits and the fair market value of the property acquired should not exceed twenty times the annual net profit. In this case the land was acquired u/s 19(1) of the Defence of India Act of 1939. In the said Act Section 23(1) was made applicable for determining the compensation and Section 23(2) was excluded to the acquisition proceedings under the Defence of India Act. 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has stated that the method of calculation of compensation in the aforesaid authority cannot be supported u/s 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired the Court has to take into consideration various factors. 4. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has stated that the method of calculation of compensation in the aforesaid authority cannot be supported u/s 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired the Court has to take into consideration various factors. In the first place it has to take into consideration the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notice u/s 4(1) of the Act. In the second place, it has to take into consideration the damages, if any, sustained by the person interested by reason of standing crop or trees which may be on the land at the time of taking of possession by the Collector. In the third place, damages, if any, sustained by the person interested by reason of serving such land from his other land. In the fourth place, damages, if any, sustained by reason of acquisition affecting his other property movable or immovable in any other manner or his earnings. In the fifth place, by taking into consideration the consequences of the person interested being compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses and incidental to such change being incurred by him and in the sixth place, damages, if any, bona fide resulting from diminution of profit of the land between the time of publication of the declaration and the time of collector's taking possession of the land. The method of the calculating the amount of compensation by capitalizing net profits and the fair market value not exceeding twenty times is not at all recognized by the Act. However, the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench seem to have been influenced by the Defence of India Act and by certain authorities and have laid down a method which is not proper and accurate for determining the market value of the property which is sought to be acquired. 5. The Appellants have relied on an unreported authority of this Court Ram Swarup v. The Uttar Pradesh Government First Appeal No. 54 of 1953 decided on 16-3-1960 by a Division Bench of this Court. In this case compensation was allowed separately for the building and the area adjoining the building. The compensation of the building was calculated after taking the annual rent of the building into consideration. In this case compensation was allowed separately for the building and the area adjoining the building. The compensation of the building was calculated after taking the annual rent of the building into consideration. In this authority a different method for calculating the compensation is envisaged. Unreported judgment was not taken note of in 1961 ALJ 340 (supra) but has devised its own method of calculation. Unreported judgment (supra) lays down the correct method of calculating the amount of compensation. 6. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has argued that the evidence on record was not considered by the court below. He has referred to the statement .of one Shyam Lal, who is employee of the Respondents. He has not supported the case of the Respondents but has in some measures, supported the claim of the Appellants. Reliance is also placed on the statement of the Appellant who has stated the commercial value and potentiality of the land in question. The report of the expert is also on record. After deducting depreciation the expert has opined that the Appellants are entitled to get Rs. 2,61,800/-as compensation for the property in question. The covered area is 830 sq. yard and open land is 4150 sq. yard. Out of the compensation awarded Smt. Maya Devi and Gayatri Devi have been given 1/56 spare each. The remaining amount is to be divided equally between the other claimants. No solatium is paid by the court below. 7. The learned Counsel for the Appellants also contested the finding of the court below by which the court below has taken the building and the land as one unit and has calculated the compensation on the basis of the property being one unit. This method of calculation of compensation is said to be bad. 8. In the case of Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi AIR 1988 SC 943 , it was held that where the property comprises extensive land and the structures thereon do not indicate a relisation of the full developmental potential of the land, it might not be impermissible to value the property estimating separately the market value of the law with reference to the date of the preliminary notification and to add to it the value of the structures as at that time. In this method, building value is estimated on the basis of the prime cost or replacement cost less depreciation. In this method, building value is estimated on the basis of the prime cost or replacement cost less depreciation. The rate of depreciation is generally arrived at by dividing the cost of construction (less the salvage value at the end of the period of utility) by the number of years of utility of the building. The factors that prolong the life and utility of the building, such as good maintenance, necessarily influence and bring down the rate of depreciation. The area on which the building stands can be considered as one unit because the land underneath the building cannot be separated from the building. Therefore, it has to be valued along with the building. The value of the land is determined by the value of the building standing on it. The court below has held that the land and building constitute one unit and the value of the entire unit has to be determined with all advantages and its potentialities: This finding does not appear to be healthy, inasmuch as major chunk of the land is adjacent to the building. The building does not stand over the entire piece of land, which has been acquired. The building stands on a small piece of land, which is 830 sq. yards. The remaining land to the extent of about 4150 sq. yards is adjacent to it and the said land has its potentiality and is commercially valuable. Therefore, it cannot be treated as one unit with the building. It was, therefore, permissible for the court below to value the building and the land underneath the building separately and thereafter add to its value the value of the adjoining land measuring about 4150 sq. yards. The court below has adopted a noval method by which the Appellants have been deprived of the compensation of about 4150 sq. yards of land. It has taken note of 1961 ALJ 340 (supra) without caring to consider that the said authority was influenced by the provisions of the Defence of India Act and different method of calculation was, therefore, adopted in determining the value of the property by the Court. 9. In the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere Vs. yards of land. It has taken note of 1961 ALJ 340 (supra) without caring to consider that the said authority was influenced by the provisions of the Defence of India Act and different method of calculation was, therefore, adopted in determining the value of the property by the Court. 9. In the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere Vs. P. Veerabhadarappa and Others, AIR 1984 SC 774 , the Supreme Court has held that the method of valuation may be ascertained by (1) opinion of experts (2) The prices paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase or sale of the lands acquired or of the lands adjacent to those acquired and possessing similar advantages and (3) a number of years' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. Normally, the method of capitalization the actual or immediately prospective profits or the rent of a number of years' purchase should not be resorted to if there is evidence of comparable sales or other evidence for computation of market value. It can be resorted to only when no other method is available. It was held that the method of capitalizing the actual or immediately prospective profits or the rent of a number of years' purchase should not be resorted to if there is evidence of comparable sales or other evidence for computation of the market value. In the present case there is evidence about the market value, opinion of expert. Therefore, the method of capitalization is not required to be resorted to. The Supreme Court has, therefore, impleadly disapproved to make calculation of the compensation by adopting the method of capitalization or the net profit of the land. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to follow the authority reported in 1961 ALJ 340 (supra) in view of .the Supreme Court authority. 10. The market value of the land was approximately Rs. 50/- per sq. Yard at the relevant time. However it will be reasonable that the Appellants are paid Rs. 40/- per sq. yard because the land was undeveloped and the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. yard appears to be reasonable and the compensation has been given at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. yeard for Plot No. 234 in F.A.F.O. No. 400 of 1982. The said plot is adjacent to the land involved in this appeal. 11. 40/- per sq. yard because the land was undeveloped and the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. yard appears to be reasonable and the compensation has been given at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. yeard for Plot No. 234 in F.A.F.O. No. 400 of 1982. The said plot is adjacent to the land involved in this appeal. 11. The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that he claimed Rs. 10/- per sq. yard, which was prevalent in the year 1920 when the notification was issued under different Act. But when it was issued under the Land Acquisition Act in 1960 he has claimed compensation at higher rate because the Nagar Mahapalika has sold the land, which is similar to the acquired land, at the rate of Rs. 70/- to Rs. 110/- per sq. yard. The learned Counsel for the Appellants relied on the report of the expert which he has tendered in evidence. On the basis of the evidence, which seems to be reasonable, the Appellants are entitled to get Rs. 42,789/- for the building along with the land underneath the building which is calculated by the court below by taking the cost of the building into consideration. In addition to this they will be entitled to get Rs. 1,66,000/- compensation for the land measuring 4150 sq. yards at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. yards. In addition to this the Appellants are entitled to get 15% solatium (old rate) and 9% interest on the amount, which has remained unpaid, from the date of taking over possession of the property till the date final payment is made. 12. The judgment and decree of the court below is set aside and the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.